The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to act on a breach of planning control on a listed building. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
The complainant, I shall call Mr J, complains the Council has failed to ensure amendments to approved plans are regularised by a retrospective planning application.
Mr J wants the Council to: Retrain staff Enforce planning control rather than cite expediency as a reason to do nothing Prosecute his neighbours Pay him compensation for his time, trouble, and grievance
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating further investigation would not lead to a different outcome we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr J and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council has invited Mr J’s neighbour to put in a retrospective application to regularise breaches of planning control which exist. It cannot force the neighbours to make an application.
Without a retrospective application, the Council decided not to take enforcement action as it does not consider the unauthorised development adversely affects the character of the building. And if the neighbour did make an application, the Council believes it would likely grant planning permission.
Mr J wants the Council to prosecute his neighbour for deliberately harming a listed building. However, the Council confirms it has seen no evidence that the neighbour is intentionally damaging the listed building.
Having inspected the site and considering the matter, the Council believes it is unreasonable and disproportionate to prosecute. It also says the unauthorised work would not meet the criteria for service of a Listed Building Enforcement Notice (LBEN). Having considered the effect of the work on the character of the listed building, the Council believes the work is an improvement on what was on site previously.
The ingress of water to Mr J’s property is a civil matter between him and his neighbours.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr J’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the breaches of planning control. The Council investigated the reports. It has visited the site. It has decided it is not expedient to take enforcement action and the breaches do not meet the criteria for issuing an LBEN. It has explained its reasoning in its reports and its letters to Mr J. This is the process we expect to see. Without evidence of fault in the process we cannot consider the merits of the Council’s decision.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman